page64

Brimbank Labor's oldest platform

News that former City of Brimbank mayor Charlie Apap has been convicted for indecent assault puts the spotlight once again on some of the more unsavoury history of the ALP in Melbourne's western suburbs, as a number of press reports show.

Labor Party identity Apap, 70 is known locally as a rent collector. He was found guilty in the Sunshine magistrate's court of putting his hand down the back of a 20 year old mother's jeans and underwear while collecting her rent.

Adding insult to injury, as the Leader reports "The landlord made a subsequent application for lost rent money due to the tenant giving insufficient notice before vacating the premises".

Apap is no stranger to the court, having previously been involved in a dispute over unpaid printing bills for Labor candidates at a Brimbank council election. At the last election five councillors did not declare any contributions to their electoral campaigns.

One of the councillors, Ken Capar, subsequently got into hot water at a New Zealand conference while on a council-funded junket for the Keilor Cemetery Trust. According to reports Capar remained drunk for the full three days of the conference, and was unfortunate enough on his return to wake up and see the headline "I was drunk" plastered on the front pages.

According to the local Star newspaper two women reported alleged sexual advances by Cr Capar. The story continues

"Cr Capar admitted being intoxicated on Thursday 10 October during the last day of the conference but in a letter to the Keilor Cemetery Trust he objected to allegations which included making inappropriate sexual advances to female and male delegates."

To cap it off hotel security staff later found him in possession of certain items that had been reported missing by other delegates.

Sexual harassment and theft by a councillor would not normally be rewarded. Capar resigned from the Cemetery Trust in disgrace but remains a sitting Brimbank councillor, no doubt grateful for the complexities of trans-Tasman litigation.

Chairwoman of the Trust at the time was Brimbank's Deputy Mayor Kathryn Eriksson, forced to endure the full three days of Capar's ratepayer-funded extravagance. With talk of police charges however she defended her colleague and in doing so submitted herself to public humiliation, saying

"It's a disgrace that we (the trust and council) can't communicate between ourselves. To have people turn around and say that we're going on junkets just because of one person behaved inappropriately, I find it really sad."

Indeed it is. Even more sadly Deputy Mayor Eriksson is also known as the wife of former Labor Minister Andrew Theophanous who became the first sitting member of parliament to be gaoled for bribery, conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth and corruption.

Evidence submitted at his trial alleged that in rorting the immigration system he wasn't just seeking money, but also sexual gratification. An NCA tape recording has him saying "Maybe next week or towards the end of the week we might have a meeting, you know, see if I like her."

Channel 9's Sunday program quotes Theophanous from the secret recordings soliciting sexual favours. "…and she is prepared to have some times with me but keep her mouth shut completely then we will do it for $100 for a year." [A discount from the standard illegal fee he was asking for from clients].

Theophanous is still seen at Brimbank Council meetings, where he occasionally bumps into his close factional ally Hakki Suleyman. Suleyman is father of Brimbank councillor Natalie Suleyman; he runs the local migrant resource centre and in his spare time works as electoral officer for Planning Minister Justin Madden.

Suleyman was the subject of a formal complaint to the council in 2005, describing his behaviour toward a woman at a council meeting as "angry, rude, confrontational and abusive" to the point where she had to ask the CEO for protection and to be escorted to her car.

A number of metropolitan papers report an alleged assault by Suleyman on a woman handing out leaflets in the street. According to the Age

"He was pulling me and I was shaking back and forth at the force. I just saw his face and I thought, 'He's going to hit me'. I then started to panic and I screamed at the top of my voice, 'You leave me alone.' And he backed off."

The Herald Sun report of the incident mentions welts and cuts left by Suleyman on the victim's arm while "A day later, his son Mehmet Suleyman, who worked for former police minister Andre Haermeyer, allegedly attacked a young man with a screwdriver -- an incident police are now investigating." The report also mentions a fist fight between the younger Suleyman and Brimbank councillor Sam Tabban, but that's another story. Stay tuned for that one.

The press reports taken together paint the ALP in the west as a party of misfits and sexual predators using intimidation in the exercise of their power: the power of the rent collector over the young tenant, the power of the drunken councillor, the power to grant or deny a visa, and the power of sheer physical force.

Suleyman daughter Natalie shares with Charlie Apap the dubious distinction of being a former mayor of Brimbank council. Along with her current duties as councillor, she works as electoral officer for the now-discredited former Police Minister and MP Andre Haermeyer. For a time she worked alongside convicted criminal Craig Otte in the same office.

Haermeyer came to prominence again more recently when the Herald Sun reported police sources alleging he tried to influence the outcome of a rape investigation by using his influence over "top cop" Noel Ashby.

Ashby for his part said it was appropriate to keep Mr Haermeyer "informed" because Mr Haermeyer had a professional relationship with the woman. Perhaps you can work that one out.

The story makes allegations about the role of the Victorian ombudsman in the case and concludes by stating the obvious - there is no crime and corruption commission in Victoria capable of investigating the misdeeds of our elected representatives.

And don't they know it.

You have to be careful when you accuse someone of being on the gravy train. Cries of indignation are not uncommon because the accused is usually adamant that they are entirely blameless and that their good works more than compensate for the 'groundless' dispersions cast upon their good name. They will put forward any amount of documentation to justify their existence. To satisfy any inquiry. This has become the most important prerequisite of many organisations these days, justifying their existence.

The soon to be redundant organization DAW (Destination Albury Wodonga) was a case in point, in many ways similar to the Albury and Wodonga Chambers of Commerce another organisation that has had an addiction to the public purse for some years. There is the recipient of the largesse and the patron. In this case the benefactors of both organizations are the Albury and Wodonga Councils. Enough has been said about DAW, the bottomless pit that consumed millions of ratepayers' funds during the last decade. Come the end of this financial year it will cease to exist and presumably fade away into the netherworld of waste and missed opportunity. Of course there will be the occasional mutterings that they were victims of unsubstantiated claims - mutterings of vendetta's and so forth. The benefactors, the Albury and Wodonga councils will be unwilling to enter into retrospection about how and why it went wrong for obvious reasons.

The Albury Northside and Wodonga Chambers of Commerce are along with DAW the largest recipients of grants to organizations. Between them they receive close to $300,000 thousand a year of which the Wodonga Council contributes $122,954 and the Albury City Council about $150,000. Not insubstantial amounts that contribute close to half of the operating budget of the three chambers. It is interesting to note that in the Albury Northside Chamber of Commerce Annual Report the Albury City Council's contribution to the total revenue of $307,175 is not mentioned. It would be no doubt similar in Wodonga although getting hold of a financial report for the Wodonga Chamber of Commerce proved somewhat elusive.

The first thing Borderline asked itself do other councils support their respective chambers of commerce with such large amounts of cash of ratepayers' funds. We chose four councils being Orange, Wagga, Wangaratta and Beechworth and made inquires to their finance departments as to the extent of their financial support of their chambers of commerce. In all four cases they did not provide any financial support whatsoever. In most cases they did supply in-kind support and sponsor one or two individual award categories, which most probably would have been done at a very modest cost that could be measured in the hundred rather than thousands of dollars.

Does this mean that Albury, Northside and Wodonga Chambers of Commerce are a 'special case' that their efforts are more successful in their endeavours than the other councils mentioned? That their performance and services to their 'stakeholders' are of a better standard than those supplied by similar organisations in Orange, Wagga, Wangaratta and Beechworth. Is there an argument for the Albury Northside and Wodonga Chambers of Commerce receiving such largesse from the public purse? There is not. Furthermore it is believed by Borderline and supported by inquires to several businesses in Albury Wodonga in receiving such vast amounts of ratepayers' money the outcome is actually detrimental to Albury Wodonga.

You are no doubt familiar with the adage; don't bite the hand that feeds you. A similar case could be made against the beneficiary of any grants made by council. There has to be seen that a co-operative spirit exists between both council and the recipient. The objectivity both councils make when they disperse ratepayers' funds to community organizations has to be seen as being worthy as defined by the councillors and the council officers. Such definitions are sometimes not as objective as they should be. Where was the objectivity when Albury and Wodonga pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into DAW year after year? Where were the councillors and council officers who could see beyond the spin and dubious outcomes that DAW was taking them for a ride? Some had their suspicions but that's as far as it went.

The same can be said about Albury, Northside and Wodonga Chambers of Commerce in that the public perception is that of uncritical relationship where the chambers are more an adjunct to council than an autonomous organisation that co-operates with their respective councils rather than be a mere imprimatur of council policy . Don't the executive of Albury and Northside have their meetings in the executive office at the Albury City Council offices in Kiewa Street? It seems that such a symbiotic relationship is essential to positive outcomes for the Albury City Council. Take for example the Lavington Library, the Chairperson of the Northside Chamber of Commerce, Arthur Frauenfelder was glowing in his support of relocating the library yet a few months earlier the Albury Northside Chamber of Commerce had enthusiastically endorsed the Albury and Lavington CBD Masterplan, prepared by Allen Jack + Cottier at a cost of approximately $300,000. The masterplan presented in June 2008 was adamant that the existing library should be the 'focal point' of the Lavington CBD. So here we have Albury City Council issuing a strategic document on the future of Albury Lavington and endorsed by Albury's two chambers of commerce and then several months later (August) the Albury City Council issues a Lavington Library Cost Benefit Analysis prepared by the AEC Group which using a dodgy set of numbers (no wonder the AEC Group began their $10,00 plus analysis with a disclaimer) supporting the relocation of the Lavington Library and in the process making the Lavington part of the $300,000 CBD Masterplan redundant. There was absolutely no critical interaction from Northside Chamber of Commerce at all on the processes undertaken by the Albury City Council. When the last DAW brochure was finally published several months ago, a couple of years late, again Arthur Frauenfelder's enthusiasm seemed to know no bounds for the publication. While it was almost universally condemned by those who worked in the tourist/marketing industry Arthur was adament. Who fed him the lines remains to be seen. Just weeks ago Arthur Frauenfelder was at it again signing some memorandum of understanding with DAW and its 'new model' in the hope that Albury City Council might provide ongoing funding. The 'new model' was subsequently rejected by Albury City Council. The Mayor of Wodonga tried a similar proposal on the Wodonga Chamber of Commerce but they didn't want to get into tourism. A wise move.

The public perception is that Arthur seems to be the public face of the Albury Northside Chamber of Commerce. He is the public face of the agenda that is set by the general manager of Albury, Les Tomich. Is Mr Frauenfelder so naive that he is seen by many to be doing other peoples bidding to make councils agenda when it comes to more controversial projects like the relocation of the Lavington library more palatable.? Wodonga on the other hand relies to be so joined at the hip that their mission statement; to represent the interests of the Wodonga business community with clear, independent support and advocacy seems more of a rhetorical flourish than reflecting the reality of real arms length advocacy.

These organizations have developed a dependence on ratepayers' funds and what do the residents of Albury Wodonga get out of it? They give the impression that they represent business in Albury Wodonga but the truth is they represent a minority of businesses in Albury Wodonga, and the elite at that. Why should they get such substantial support from their councils when virtually every other council in New South Wales and Victoria are self funded? The reason Albury and Wodonga are so substantially funded is that there is undoubtedly a quid pro quo mindset that ensures that business and council are seen to collaborate to the betterment of Albury and Wodonga when in fact the chambers should be a lot more objective and transparent in how they set their agendas when it comes to the big issues that arise in Albury. Then again the issue at hand doesn't have to be that big to make one suspicious that their mutual dependence might not be beneficial to Albury Wodonga.

A while back the Albury Chamber of Commerce asked the Albury City Council if they could do something about the entrance to the eastern end of Dean Street. It is a pretty soulless place with Dan Murphys (owned by Woolworths) on one side and 1st Choice (owned by Coles) on the other side. The 1st choice building replaced the Terminus Hotel which burnt down in mysterious circumstances in 2005. There was no attempt to build anything that resembled the architectural quality of the Terminus. What replaced the Terminus was a generic concrete slab grog shop. It was all very nice for the Albury Chamber of Commerce to be concerned about public perceptions when cars entered Dean Street from the eastern side. Not very promising at all - rather bleak to tell you the truth. Why is it then when a major shareholder of the 1st Choice development was a prominent executive member of the Albury Chamber of Commerce. Did he have Albury's interest in mind when they decided to erect such a building? Of course not. Yet some time after the building was constructed they are asking the Albury City Council to do something about the appearance of that part of Dean Street! Is it hypocrisy or is it hypocrisy?

There is no justification for the Albury and Wodonga Councils to subsidise what is essentially a lobby group for a minority of businesses in Albury Wodonga. Of course Borderline does not deny them the right to exist but surely with the number of businesses in Albury Wodonga they could be entirely self funded. Surely if businesses in Albury Wodonga had full confidence in their chambers of commerce they would only be too willing to become members? It appears not. As one member told Borderline that he attended a chamber of commerce meeting and was unimpressed by some of the member's propensity to 'push their own barrows' and that many some people use it as a networking tool. It is an observation that is shared by a not inconsiderable number of the Albury Wodonga business community.